United States v. Samuel Turner, 934 F.3d 794

Late-night police responded to a reported disturbance near Turner’s trailer court; Officers Monico and Price encountered Kimberlie Bridges and Samuel Turner.
As Turner approached, Monico shone a flashlight; he observed Turner standing on a bag that appeared to contain a large quantity of methamphetamine.
Officers ordered Turner and Bridges to put their hands on a vehicle; Turner reached for the bag, resisted, was seized, handcuffed, and arrested; a second bag was found near Bridges.
Turner’s phone, taken during booking, was forensically processed; extracted photos and text messages referenced money, drugs, and communications indicating contact about drugs.
Turner was indicted for possession with intent to distribute (5+ grams meth), moved to suppress the stop/arrest and for a subpoena duces tecum, and objected to phone evidence; the district court denied relief, and a jury convicted him; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Turner’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether initial encounter was an unlawful seizure (motion to suppress)	Officers lacked reasonable suspicion; stop/questioning was a seizure	Officers’ questioning was consensual and, when they observed the bag, they developed probable cause to detain	Encounter was consensual; officers lawfully detained after observing suspected drugs; suppression denial affirmed
Whether district court abused discretion by denying subpoena duces tecum	Turner sought investigative reports to show exculpatory evidence and alternative source of drugs	Request was overbroad and lacked specificity as required for subpoena duces tecum	Denial not an abuse of discretion due to lack of specificity
Admissibility/authentication of phone photos and texts	Items not properly authenticated and contained inadmissible hearsay	Phone was Turner’s; extraction procedure testified to; texts from Turner’s phone and images are non-hearsay or opposing-party statements	Authentication burden met; photos/texts admissible; any hearsay error harmless
Sufficiency of evidence for intent to distribute	Evidence insufficient to prove intent to distribute beyond possession	Large quantity, messages, photos, officer testimony, and Turner’s post-Miranda statements supported intent	Verdict supported by sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed

United States v. Hayden, 759 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.) (consensual encounters can develop into reasonable suspicion/probable cause)
United States v. Cook, 842 F.3d 597 (8th Cir.) (consensual encounters and Bostick analysis)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounters vs. seizures analysis)
United States v. Needham, 852 F.3d 830 (8th Cir.) (low authentication threshold for exhibits; harmless-error analysis)
United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.) (review standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Bailey, 700 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for subpoenas duces tecum denials)
United States v. Bradford, 806 F.3d 1151 (8th Cir.) (specificity and relevance required for subpoenas duces tecum)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings requirement)